Archive for the ‘Ford 5.0L V-8’ tag

Note: I write up driving impressions of virtually every car I photograph within a couple of days of the drive, so everything is fresh in my memory. Occasionally, because of the constraints of format (i.e., “Buyer’s Guide”) the prepared text doesn’t run. Now, thanks to the joys of the blogosphere, it can.

We are within 20 years of your author’s entry into the world of paid automotive writing (I dare not call what I do journalism), and the appearance of a 5.0 Mustang in Hemmings Muscle Machines dovetails nicely with that first writing gig – filling the pages of a monthly, 300-page magazine devoted to nothing but fuel-injected Fox-bodied 5.0-liter Mustangs, in the days preceding the launch of the SN95. It took a lot to get Mustangs into the 400-horsepower range – stroker kits, superchargers, endless computer fettling in those early days of an emerging technology. Today, Ford offers a naturally aspirated plug-and-play crate motor that’s rated at more than twice what a stock 5.0 makes under the hood.

Beyond the endless parade of machines I’d snapped (and never driven) for that other title, I’d photographed a couple of Five-Oh’s for Muscle over the years – a gray original-owner five-speed convertible and an ex-Navy spotter to help U2 spy planes land – but they were long enough ago that I remembered nothing about them. Editor and 1993 LX Coupe owner McGean wrote the story as a Modified Muscle machine for the August 2013 issue of Hemmings Muscle Machines, but I got to photograph this example. And drive it. Just to refresh my memory, of course. Ahem. Of course, it’s not a strictly fair comparison – what with twice the stock power under the hood, and all – but nothing else has been changed (or, strictly speaking, the things that were altered were returned to stock).

Inside is strangely familiar, yet time (and attention paid elsewhere) has made it seem slightly foreign. The seats are from a 1986; they feel like Recaros, despite fabric that matches the rest of the light blue interior exactly, with stiff bolsters and a soft, cosseting middle that you can sink into. The pre-airbag two-spoke wheel felt moderately (and surprisingly) chunky, the mirrors are absurd (tiny on the doors, the rearview mirror so large and in your face it seems to block half the glass), and oh, the plastics! Fisher-Price would sue if we used their name in comparison to the brittle bits dotted about the dash. Switches click with positive actuation, but you’re also afraid you’ve gone and snapped something in the process.

All 5.0-liter Mustangs rumble, but with twice the power and a pair of Flowmaster 40s under the rear floor, the volume’s been turned up a couple of notches. Other than the sound, the best indicator of what’s to come is the shifter, which twitches itself into a blur at idle. The light clutch and the crisp shifting means that you’re never caught out when accelerating, and the T-5 is easy to throttle-match as you downshift. The Hurst shifter is positive and metallic, with just the right throw. And the acceleration… We had just stepped out of a new Shelby GT500, and accelerative comparisons – the sheer, ballistic slingshot we apparently launched from – feel fairly apt. You also don’t get the sense that the car is working as hard somehow – maybe it’s that missing 750-plus pounds of who-knows-what that the featherweight Fox-body lacks. Get on it, and the nose rises as the tires slide and the engine note and tach freeze in time briefly before everyone embarks on their appointed journey. Ignore the 4,800 RPM yellow and 5,800 RPM redlines, we’re advised, and shift at 6,500. We do, and are rewarded with what feels like warp-speed capabilities.

You can also feel the lightness in the turns – the wider, newer rubber surely aids in this to some degree, but the 5.0-liter seems far more chuckable than a new Mustang – despite the newer car’s higher dynamic limits. The seats keep you in place, allowing all of your limbs to be working the controls and not bracing. The only downside resides within the brakes – the tiny disc/drum combination feels barely adequate for 225 horsepower, much less double that number. Knowing the Ford parts bin, and how the existing five-lug Lincoln Mk VII rotors on all corners are easily-enough swapped on, you’d think that Ford would have beefed up the brakes for the performance models … alas.

Because the vintage (did I just call a 1989 car vintage? Yes, I did.) 5.0′s limits are so much lower than any new Mustang’s, even a V-6′s, they feel within reach – and reaching for them is half the fun. No wonder Ford sold a bazillion of these from 1987 to 1993 (and no wonder there was an entire magazine dedicated to them): It’s tight, light and bright, and with a bit more power, it’s ridiculous fun.

Orwellian overtones of a police state aside, this 1984 Ford LTD police car is not technically a Fairmont or Granada, even though their past and Futura are related. That was an unusual year for the Ford LTD, for the Fox and the Panther lived together on the same showroom floor. The Fox-body LTD, as shown here in police trim, was joined by the full-size Panther platform LTD Crown Victoria. Either way, the days of inexpensive and plentiful police Mustangs and Fox-variants are long gone. The seller sums up the crux of why this LTD may not look like much, but has the goods to get the job done:

One of those niche models was the 1984-’85 LTD police package, which combined the Mustang’s 5.0 liter V-8 with an enhanced suspension package from the LTD LX to create what many cops referred to as “the four door Mustang.”

Ticking the 5.0 option box got you the 5-speed manual and the “2-link” mod to the solid rear (horizontal leading shocks welded to the axle, which completely stopped wheel hop and axle tramp). Surprisingly, you could get a 5.0 LX with the stock skinny tires on steel wheels! I ordered the alloys with the Goodyear Gatorbacks…

Engine: Carburated 302 (600 cfm Holley; last year of the carb 302), factory headers and stainless steel exhaust, pretty cast-aluminum valve covers, 215 h.p., 265 lb-ft of torque. If you were so unwise as to order the auto gearbox, you got the fuel-injected 302 that made 5 less h.p.

With A/C and the “light group” (basically, a map light in the cockpit and an underhood bulb), manual windows, the sticker was $10,055 (base of around $6,995).

My insurance company (State Farm) didn’t even know what it was. All they cared about was that Ford’s designation for it was “66B 2-door sedan,” so I paid the same premium as if it were a four-banger grandma car…

The first Ford dealer I went to, by the way, told me I couldn’t get a 5.0 sedan. “Cops only,” I was told. But I had read in the buff books that a “civilian” could, in fact, get a non-GT 5.0 for 1985. Found another dealer, who said, Sure, but it’ll take a few months to get. I said, “no problem…”

There’s always an audience for a Q-ship, especially one that pulls the wool over the eyes of the insurance companies, and we know that there’s a growing enthusiast base for both the four-eyed Fox-body Mustangs and the more sedate-looking sedans. However, most of the Fox-body Mustang enthusiasts we speak with seem to turn their noses up at anything with four-lug wheels; it seems that, generally speaking, this era of Mustang is the second least loved next to the Mustang II.

But we could be wrong, so the question we’ll put to the rest of the readership is similar to the one we posed with the Corvette: Is it inevitable that any car with the Mustang badge become among the most cherished cars of that era, or are there only certain breeds of Mustang that have what it takes to run toward the front of the pack? In the comments below, tell us whether you consider this particular Mustang a collectible car and why.

Also, don’t forget: Start sending in your suggestions for cars to consider for the Class of 1986!